Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Originally posted by Kiffer


Why should anyone consider this whackjob's case?

Ill tell you why, because he has already PROVEN to the tune of over half a million dollars in legal fees hiding his true identity. Secondly, he has PROVEN the American people who have supported him and financed his campaign with record breaking figures putting together and affording him a first class campaign, so If you think it is asking too much to expect him to provide a first class genuine bonafide Birth Certificate! You people insist on showing how absolutely negligent we the people have become and your belief you can take ANYONE in Government for their word belies human comprehension

You believe his mother! ha ha don't you think his mom has a self serving reason to say this other than to be honest? Here Ill give you a clue.

If she lies, HER SON GETS TO BE PRESIDENT!

The State of Hawaii says so,

Oh Rly!
FACT: NO THEY DID NOT! get it through your head, do you enjoy the idea of someone taking you for a sucker? The response given to placate we the people was articulated as a slick and slippery attempt to have you think they DID say just what you think they said but get out of the ether there cowboy, ask yourself and be drop dead honest, DID THEY actually say he was born in Hawaii?

Here is wat they said verbatim and I quote" Fukino: I can tell you that we have a record for barack obama's Vaulted birth certificate and it is authentic"

Ok he has a authentic birth certificate

SO WHAT! WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE BRACKETS USED TO INDICATE PLACE OF BIRTH!

When asked this question by reporters fukino gestured by rolling his eyes and snubbed the question saying he had work to do.

Not to be rebuffed easily, some of us "whack job right wingers" as you have dubbed us, I suppose a term of endearment, are not satisfied with nothing less than FULL SELF DISCLOSURE and not documents every identity thief uses to steal a credit card with such as a silly COLB.

. Barack Obama is an American citizen. He was born in Hawaii after World War II. His mother says so, and I take her at her word. and I certainly take them at their word.

I know some have argued that he should release his birth certificate for examination. Why should he? Why would you? I certainly would not, under any circumstances except applying for a passport. It's a private document which could easily be used for identity theft. He's not hiding anything. folks. He's trying to protect his privacy, same as you and I would do.

.

Ha ha He is a PUBLIC FIGURE! what do you think someone will copy paste his BC and go to a bank saying they are barack obama! He isn't giving us his SS# JUST HIS BC! Yes we not only want to see it, but we have a RIGHT to see it. Your logic would allow anyone to have us forced to just take anyone at their word they are qualified for the job and when was the last time you went to apply for a job where they required you to show them some kind of ID as you gave in the example of the passport, what happens if you tell them "I aint showing you my damn birth certificatet" what do you think they would say to that?

Ill bet you they would say "Then you ain't getting a damn passport homey!"

THAT is exactly what WE need to say to anyone running for president from now on is if you don't show us you are above board and honest, then YOU AINT GETTING THE JOB!

Take him at his word? If it is good enough to put into words it is good enough to put into writing and all that writing is on the vaulted BC and anyone asking to see it is NOT a whack job a right wing nut or any other slur you can ridicule us with.

They are Americans who don't want another four more years of a liar a fraud and a charlatan in office like we have had the past eight years or have you forgotten about George Bush, 911, Iraq, Katrina, Haliburton, FISA, PNAC, the Patriot act?

The first oath of office is to swear to uphold and defend the US constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, THIS guy is spitting on it hence all of us before he ever gets his but into office! Showing us his damn birth certificate is an easy thing to do and not at all an unusual request considering the power he is attempting to have us give him. What makes you think he will be forth coming when the secrets get a little more interesting? A little more corrupt? We set the bar here at this level of cloak and dagger subterfuge now and we won't know Jack Squat later.

I have a friend who hold triple citizenship. His father is an Israeli Jew, his mother is a British citizen, and he was born in New York City. Therefore, he holds simultaneous U.S., British, and Israeli citizenship. Deal with it.

Yeah so?

If he ran for president, we would be asking for his Birth Certificate too

Deal with THAT





[edit on 12-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

I can't believe this entire topic has gotten so many responses, and rabid readership.

This website is an utter embarrassment to its members, owners, moderators, and the world at large.

I'm off of this site permanently.

Deny ignorance, and so forth.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by paxnatus

I see you obviously supported McCain.

If this "theory" is true.

Why did McCain not use it during the campaign?

Why did he not call Obama out during the debates on this BC issue?

Man I swear, it's always something with you night that if it's gays you accuse of bigotry if it has a Black guy in the story it's racism we are all guilty of and now you are asking us to speculate on why someone who has been through a very similar form of scrutiny regarding his own eligibility and birth certificate, owing much of that being resolved because of Obama writing legislation to make him legally eligible via a legal investigation by some legal experts and owed Obama for helping with that. Oh yeah and because McCain did something very extraordinary in the anals of politics, something so extreme and so above and beyond the call of duty, one wonders why we didn't see that this man was the only one of the two candidates left that would do something THIS honorable this special, for the Americann people.

HE SHOWED THEM HIS GENUINE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

You see HAPPINNESS was right all along! You might get some happinness now Bush has gone...

Here it is the 12!!


And I bet the same thing happens with the most recent baseless lawsuit as happened last week.

How come no one is on here talking about this today?

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ill tell you why, because he has already PROVEN to the tune of over half a million dollars in legal fees hiding his true identity.

I ask, for the third time in this thread, where is there evidence that he has spent ANYTHING on legal fees? What is the documentation on this alleged half-million to "over a million" number that keeps being brought up, or the "three law firms he's hired"?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ill tell you why, because he has already PROVEN to the tune of over half a million dollars in legal fees hiding his true identity.

I ask, for the third time in this thread, where is there evidence that he has spent ANYTHING on legal fees? What is the documentation on this alleged half-million to "over a million" number that keeps being brought up, or the "three law firms he's hired"?

I gave up giving proof to obamanoids the day they started using factcheck.org and that phoney COLB. to substantiate all their claims in an effort to cover up all obama's lies.

Never ceases to amaze me is the Obama supporters always insisting on proof of this said about Obama and proof about that said about Obama yet when we want proof he was born in Hawaii and not just to tell what they got is authentic but where he is from? Can't even show a damn BC ??"

or here let me use an Obama trick all the supporters of him use.

Why should i prove it! Wanna see my copy pastes of the bankl receipts? they are AUTHENTIC! Just doesn't prove what the money was spent on.


Here, ya go

reply to post by Aermacchi


Okay. Great post...

Since when has factcheck.org not been reputable? Since when has anyone proven that the COLB is fake? In fact, have they not given up on that and said that even though it is real, it doesn't mean anything?

You can't provide one piece of evidence, even from a blog, that I can't refute with a reputable source.

So keep posting blogs and talking smug to the rest of us who use real sources and good judgment.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by dariousg


Right on D,

And the fact that it seems people try to make one feel scared to be racist.

Go back to the homeland and cry to whoever sold your ancestors, we are tired of hearing it.

I dont know what to think about this BC thing, I dont think it makes a difference either way. I do find it odd that the man has changed his name what 3 times?
So he changed his name who cares? That doesnt fit the characteristics of sombody that claims to be so small town or good old boy, church helper..
Most people are proud of their names and heritage.

I am curious what information is on an authentic BC that is not on a COLB. In other words there is a colb posted on the internet by the Obama team, and then there is this other BC that is vaulted.

I am guessing that what is missining from the posted one is the following. If this is incorrect please correct me.

1. Delivering doctor sig.
2. Birth Hospital
3. birth religion?

So if these are the only additional pieces of information on the vaulted BC above and beyond what he has already released, , why would he not release them?

I mean

why hide the doctors name?
why hide the hospital name?

Now if the religion were on there, and it isn't christian I could see this as maybe a slight issue. But really not that big a deal, certainly not worth the trouble of defending 17 lawsuits.

This should be open and shut.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Okay. Great post...

Since when has factcheck.org not been reputable? Since when has anyone proven that the COLB is fake? In fact, have they not given up on that and said that even though it is real, it doesn't mean anything?

You can't provide one piece of evidence, even from a blog, that I can't refute with a reputable source.

So keep posting blogs and talking smug to the rest of us who use real sources and good judgment.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Irish M1ck]

Haven't you heard M1ck? Reality has a liberal bias and should be seen as suspect.

Originally posted by Mailman
reply to post by dariousg

 

Right on D,

And the fact that it seems people try to make one feel scared to be racist.

Go back to the homeland and cry to whoever sold your ancestors, we are tired of hearing it.

I dont know what to think about this BC thing, I dont think it makes a difference either way. I do find it odd that the man has changed his name what 3 times?
So he changed his name who cares? That doesnt fit the characteristics of sombody that claims to be so small town or good old boy, church helper..
Most people are proud of their names and heritage.

Actually, that's not true. Many people do change their name for religous or spiritual reasons. For example, every Catholic gets a new name when they are confirmed.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Since when has factcheck.org not been reputable? Since when has anyone proven that the COLB is fake? In fact, have they not given up on that and said that even though it is real, it doesn't mean anything?

It matters not whether Factcheck is reputable. It matters not whether the short-form they have on the site is real.

The best evidence for proof of birth is the original typewritten LONG-FORM Certificate of Live Birth (CLOB) prepared in 1961 and not some computer-generated form.

For evidentiary purposes, the SHORT FORM of the CLOB is merely prima facie but not the conclusive proof of birth.

The Short Form is the secondary evidence because it is sourced out of an original document which is the Long Form.

So which is the best evidence - the “derived” document or the “source” document?

The mere fact that the short form is DERIVED out of some other document means that the source document is the Best Evidence.

The proof of birth is the LONG FORM or “vault” copy of the birth certificate.

The document that shows the weight at birth, the doctor the hospital the REAL PROOF OF BIRTH that is considered by law as the BEST EVIDENCE.

The ''short form'' and the ''long form'' do not have the same probative value.

So then we come to the privacy rebuttal from Obama supporters...

To that I say...

The right of privacy of the individual (with respect to his proof of citizenship) is ipso facto waived in favor of proving that he is constitutionally qualified for run for the Presidency which requires him to be a natural born citizen.

When a candidate runs for public office he files an application for candidacy, and this is a public instrument for review by the public.

When the office requires a specific requirement which in this case is “natural born citizenship,” then the candidate must prove he is qualified.

The burden of proof lies with the candidate. In case of doubt as to the candidate’s qualifications, the latter must provide the evidence, the best evidence.

The best evidence of proof of birth is the LONG FORM or vault certificate which is the actual document signed by doctor, the parents or witnesses giving the time of birth, the weight at birth, the hospital where he was born.

The SHORT FORM, while useful in most instance, is still a secondary evidence and not the primary or best evidence of birth.

The SHORT FORM is a computer-generated document and can be assailed anytime when a proper inquiry is required. The SHORT FORM is a “derived” document. It is derived from the LONG FORM or vault copy.

The filing of candidacy being public, the supporting documents such as proof of natural born citizenship must be provided and also becomes public. The private individual, by running for public office, ipso facto, waives his privacy with respect to the specific instrument that proves his natural born citizenship.

Basic in remedial law: Mere tolerance of evidence (short form) does not elevate it to best evidence status precisely when the authenticity of the best evidence (LONG FORM) is being questioned.

Obama, as a graduate attorney and licensed by the State of Illinois, has been trained in the RULES OF EVIDENCE, passed the Illinois Bar, and knows all of this.

Attorneys are trained in this.

Why is he not coming forward with sufficient and better evidence of citizenship to shift his CITIZENSHIP issue into a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY, CORRECTNESS, VERIFICATION and CONFIRMATION?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

But the nay-sayers still wouldn't believe it. If they're willing to accuse Hawaiian state health officials of lying then there is no amount of evidence Obama can provide to satisfy them. Which, frankly, he has no need to do anyway--innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

How do YOU know we wouldn't believe it? I mean after all night we have never been given that chance. Who accused the state health officials of lying? NO one can say they are lying because they didn't commit a lie, what they did was ommit the truth. The reason you deride these people isn't because they are un-American, in fact it is that kind of angst for the status quo that got our Country started. The Government who wants to use cloak and dagger subterfuge and manufactured evidence including many duped suckers that ridicule everyone for asking for a birth certificate which is our right to know and Obama's obligation to prove.

We aren't the one making the claims, OBAMA IS! He says he was born in hawaii and we said prove it. To date he has not done that and for this kind of Job I would expect something a little more credible than a damn photoshopped COLB posted to a website he enjoys being defended by and all you are doing is assiting in the continuation of his perjury and obstruction of our right to have full disclosure.

I don't need your respect Night and if I wanted it,,

I'd just TAKE IT

Well I would say... judging by the response generated by this thread, that it would be in Mr. Obama's best interest to be a bit more forthcoming. Otherwise I think the issue will dog him indefinitely.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka



Actually, that's not true. Many people do change their name for religous or spiritual reasons. For example, every Catholic gets a new name when they are confirmed.

No Actually Honka you are,, opps forgot the other one, Honka, there. Moving on, Catholics do not change or get a new name, they merely get an additional middle name ie, "confirmation" name.

reply to post by Aermacchi


The challenge is still out there. Any "source" (blog) you can find about Obama and his eligibility, I can find a reputable source to refute it.

Originally posted by redhatty
...Obama, as a graduate attorney and licensed by the State of Illinois, has been trained in the RULES OF EVIDENCE, passed the Illinois Bar, and knows all of this.

Attorneys are trained in this.

Why is he not coming forward with sufficient and better evidence of citizenship to shift his CITIZENSHIP issue into a CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY, CORRECTNESS, VERIFICATION and CONFIRMATION?

Good post red!

Although the fact that he is an attorney also helps him to understand exactly who can and who can't request the long form copy. Looks like he's covered those bases well to this point.

He may have understood how to beat this years and years ago, if he has anything to hide.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Better question:

If the lawsuits hold any merit, why can't anyone get one to get to the discovery phase?

You want him to produce documents? Produce evidence that would make the court think this isn't all partisan bull#$*@ (which it is).

reply to post by Irish M1ck


I think I posted it in the other thread, but basically the cases haven't made it to discovery because the courts haven't had subject matter jurisdiction. Meaning the judges the cases have been assigned to aren't legally able to rule on the case so they have to dismiss. The only court with subject matter jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. I'll go hunt down my post in the other thread since I can't remember what the judges words were exactly in the decision written for the other case that is now at SCOTUS. I'll update this post when I find it.

EDIT: Found it. The post I made is here and the opinion from the original judge in the Wrotnowski case (the one SCOTUS was discussing yesterday and will give their decision about Monday) is here. The gist of the decision is summed up on page 5 in the following sentence:

Therefore, the plaintiff lacked statutory standing
to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter.

So basically lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It wasn't dismissed as frivolous and the judge didn't say that Wrotnowski didn't have a case. I'll have to see if I can find a decision from this particular case, but I would imagine that if one lower court lacks subject matter jurisdiction then they all do.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Jenna]